scott_harpell

For an older guy, especially a well learned one, I would think you were capable of not using such amazingly coarse generalities.

Did Korea attack the US? Did Germany? How about Panama, Grenada? Afghanistan didn't even attack us. Clearly you see that a direct frontal attack is not a prerequisite for war. Since when has war been a simple "he hit me ergo I hit him" algorithm? Never. All of you whiny liberals cry out "Darfur!" "Darfur!" like its your atomic bomb of debate strategies. What has Darfur ever done to the US?

I ate some indonesian dog once, it was prety gross. I think I will stick with the beer; thanks.

So, what praytell is your position in the matter Matt? Devil's advocate as I had assumed earlier?

The baisic tenants of the US military has been in place for over 200 years. There are reasons that soldiers are required to act the way they do. These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.

I disagree that the war in Iraq was wrong. The reasons that we went in there were ridiculous and for all intensive purposes superfluous. The only thing wrong with the initiation of this war (except for the aforementioned things) is that it did not happen in 1991. Saddam was an evil man and a tyrant who was as vile as Lennin, Stalin, Pol-Pot ect. He was genocidal and has at various times threatened us while implying that he had nuculear weaponry. You may ask, " why don't we go overthrow every genocidal dictator?" I don't know and it is likely because of greed and apathy. The facts remain that a War against the Saddam regime was justified by any orthodox morality. Just because there "were no weapons of mass destruction." does not mean that the offensive was ill conceived or illegal. The country was tyrannical and the only reason that the UN didn't jump on the war was the fact that some of its biggest members were illegaly bastardizing the oil for food program and didn't want that fact revealed. Furthermore, they didn't want their newfound cash cow slaughtered.

no. From a well-known researcher on cults: so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

I would like proof that GWB is a war criminal. This yahoo preaching from his pulpit is just trying to get his little piece of fame in hopes that it will reap a political harvest come autumn.

That's funny, coming from the one who denied that there is significant racial tension in Michigan and argued that the "honesty" demonstrated in a state where the Klu Klux Klan is active is good for race relations. Are you with Scott in arguing that there can never be any justification for any soldier to refuse to obey orders? How about if their commander is drunk? I never said that Matt. Obviously there are times when you simply cannot for the pure sake of morality coomply with orders. You asked me if a soldier could ever go back on his oath. There is nothing in the oath about illegal activities. Since this kid was never asked to do any illegal activities, there is no way that his argument could hold any water.

I don't know if you are really this slow Matt or whether this is your natural lawyer "devil's advocate" mode. There are reasons that you must be "by the book" in situations such as this. Think about the percentage of people who "don't want to be here" during a firefight. Tha is the reason you must be by the book.

no.

He never killed anyone. He never destroyed a city. He tortured anyone. He was an intell geek whose day was spent doing exactly what you are doing right now. He had no right to go back on his word and he had even less right to go back on his oath; morally or legally matt.

no.

This argument always gets trotted out during these discussions. Look, this kid could have gone about this in an entirely correct way. He chose not to do that. There are consequences (of which he is fully aware, I am sure) related to how he chose to exit himself from his commitment. I don't really think that the "Nuremberg principles" apply, here, anyway. Considering that the occupation was rattified by the UN (at the time of his deployment) and his job was merely in MI, there is no way the nuremburg principles apply. Nice try though

glad you brought that up matt. He never fought in a war therefore he could not even utilize his belief taht the war was unjust to precipitate his premature departure from the armed services "UN Security Council had already passed Resolutions 1483 (recognising the United States and Britain as "occupying powers" under international law) and 1546 (endorsing the creation of an Iraqi Interim Government). " so... according to the law, he couldn't have even stated that he did so because he was morally obligated because he was "fighting" in an illegal war. Furthermore, he never even fought. He was an MI geek who probably spent the duration of his service in AC; so there goes the whole "non-combatant" "consciencious objector" nonsense.

Wow. You certainly are one for hyperbole. No-one signed up to secure cheap oil, we will never tap into Iraqi oil and the mobilization of the National Guard is not a new philosophy. 2.5 mill bbls a day are being taken out of the ground in Iraq now. How much are we "anexing?" It is quite obvious the tactics you use. Wanton use of hyperbole to support a point incredibly loosly tied with the subject matter at hand. Maybe if you threw in one actual verifiable fact in there we might not have so much trouble swallowing your other abortions of truth.

Well that's a question worth pondering, soldier! Glad you asked. He assumed to role of soldier. Whether it was to get free college, pussy or healthcare, the outcome is the same. He vowed to fight entities both foreign and domestic that his government deemed a threat to either the sovereignty of the safety of the United States and its citicens. He gave up his right to question why; to quit his vow. If he had any qualms with this, it should have been addressed prior to swearing before an officer that he indeed upon penalty of perjury and death that he would accept that responsibility.

Well that is certainly his responsibility isn't it? If he wanted a good way to get free college or get pussy, there is another way; Its called the airforce. Stupid pussy.

He is either an idiot or a pussy. Technically he could swing for what he did. Doubtfull, but that should at least make him think about his actions; especially going back on his oath and his promise to the people of the USA.

Paranoia is funny; isn't it kids?

Uhm... you aren't; He's asking you. Try to keep up.

do you think the converse is true if we dont leave now?

I wonder how you would feel if I forced myself into your home, and I stayed trying to change your mind, and not letting you decide for yourself in your own home. If I gassed my sister, that might be an appropriate analogy.

apparently you are not familiar with 'pluralis majestatis.'

you are a dumb prudish bitch? never would have guessed. I'm a pinko America hater; you don't speak for me, mmmk? Yes I do.